The Yeovil vs Birmingham situation

[Out Foxed]

yeovil shouldn't have done anything

[ADK]

Yeovil should have stuck by their decision imo, even if it was 'wrong'.

[MooseBreath]

I have limited sympathy. The rules were changed to return greater control of whether or not play stops to the referee. It is for the referee to decide whether or not play should be halted to allow a player to receive treatment. This is to stop situations like this, where a side is seeking to waste time and may exaggerate injuries.

If I were a manager, I would be instructing my players not to kick the ball out of play, to permit the referee to take responsibilty for that situation, and if the opposition does kick the ball out of play in a situation where there is a good chance they are wasting time, not to return the ball.

Agree with this. Play to the whistle. The referee should take 100% of the responsibility for deciding when the game stops. That way there is no grey area.

[Jimothy]

Having finally got to watch the highlights earlier Yeovil were well within their rights to not give the ball back, although they probably should have made it clear what they intended rather than just let Birmingham believe they'd get the ball back. Birmingham where nowhere near marking up any of the Yeovil team and the net was practically unguarded. The reason I say they were right not to give it back though is that if you watch it, he's down for less that 30 seconds. The ball goes back to the keeper and he's getting to his feet when the keeper rolls it out. It wasn't so much the "injured" player who was attempting to waste time, he got straight back up, it was the keeper, who knew if he kicked it out he'd get would waste valuable seconds, and the he would get the ball back his team would have chance to regroup and he'd be able to launch it up the pitch.

Once Yeovil had scored though, they either should have let Birmingham have a free goal straight away, or just stood by their decision and took the win when they did take the lead.

[theessexfox]

Having finally got to watch the highlights earlier Yeovil were well within their rights to not give the ball back, although they probably should have made it clear what they intended rather than just let Birmingham believe they'd get the ball back. Birmingham where nowhere near marking up any of the Yeovil team and the net was practically unguarded. The reason I say they were right not to give it back though is that if you watch it, he's down for less that 30 seconds. The ball goes back to the keeper and he's getting to his feet when the keeper rolls it out. It wasn't so much the "injured" player who was attempting to waste time, he got straight back up, it was the keeper, who knew if he kicked it out he'd get would waste valuable seconds, and the he would get the ball back his team would have chance to regroup and he'd be able to launch it up the pitch.

Once Yeovil had scored though, they either should have let Birmingham have a free goal straight away, or just stood by their decision and took the win when they did take the lead.

Exactly this. Don't go back on your decision when it suits you.

[Leeds Fox]

In my opinion, you should only receive the ball back after putting it out of play for an injury to an OPPOSING player.

[Captain...]

In my opinion, you should only receive the ball back after putting it out of play for an injury to an OPPOSING player.

 

But then we had lots of incidents of teams putting pressure on the opposition to put the ball out of play because their team mate was down. This is another reason why the directive was that it was up to the ref to stop play and not the players. 

 

The problem with all this "sportsmanship" is that this isn't a sport any more it is a business and you do anything you can to get an advantage.

[Kitchandro]

You must both be watching different pictures to me, he did look tired from what I could see and looked like he was genuinely hurt, hence he didn't even run back when Yeovil decided to launch a sneaky attack down the wing.

 

If this was the other way round and Birmingham had done it to little Yeovil I think a lot of people may just have a different opinion.

 

If the keeper kicks it out of play the ref should stop his watch and not restart it until he has kicked it back out properly, solves the problem then.

 

Rubbish. If it was the other way round as in Birmingham had been behind and not ahead, I don't think they'd have kicked it out of play, I'll say that much.

 

I think you're missing the most important point here which is Birmingham had no right to kick the ball out of play. The referee hadn't instructed them to, if they don't know the rules now it's tough shit.

 

Regardless of whether they were timewasting or not (and don't be fooled, they were) it is not their decision to kick it out. They deserved to concede for that reason alone, they obviously are just ignoring the rules which have been in place for some time now.

 

It's about time an incident like this happened IMO, if players aren't going to follow the rules it's good when it bites them on the arse. Too many players still try to stop the game when it is not their decision to make.

 

I fail to see why Yeovil should have shown any sympathy. Forget about all this sportsmanship bollocks. Yeovil played to the whistle, Birmingham didn't.

[foxfanazer]

It's about time an incident like this happened IMO, if players aren't going to follow the rules it's good when it bites them on the arse. Too many players still try to stop the game when it is not their decision to make.

I agree it is about time an incident like that happened and Yeovil could've set a precedent that if you kick the ball out without the refs say so then tge other team will resume play.

Unfortunately they undid all that by letting brum have the goal after yeovil took the lead, all in all they made a right mess of it and nothing will change because of it

[Charl91]

As the only neutral person on the pitch, It should be left up to the ref as to when to stop the play.